5.27 argument1 basket river deep&broad 求猛拍求意见求指导!!!!

749896499

1."Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologists discovered such a ""alean"" basket in Lithos, an ancient village across the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and so the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and no Palean boats have been found. Thus it follows that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
结论：The so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean.
论据：
(1)The Brim River is very deep and broad
(2)the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat.
(3)No Palean boats have been found.

提纲：
（1）    THE Brim River 现在很 deep & broad, 以前不一定（prehistoric）
（2）    aleans 难道只能通过小船才能过河吗 还有其他方式 如直接让basket 飘过去，或者一场洪水把篮子冲过去了。需要提供篮子的材质等information。 或者是通过远古商人物物交换过去的，提供证据
（3）    没有发现boat 不一定没有boat，提供有关造船能力的证明，或者其他过河的工具，亦或者Lithos 有能力

Argument:

The author asserts that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean. To support the assertion the author points out that the Brim River between Palea and Lithos is very deep and broad, and that the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat, and that no Palean boats have been found. While the conclusion is plausible at the first glance, a close scrutiny of this argument reveals that the argument is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the prehistoric Brim River was deep and broad just as it looks like now. The prehistoric Brim River having been much shallower and narrower, Palean could have been walked across the river without boat. Even there was no Brim River at all at that time, just having been a land connecting Palean and Lithos. Accordingly, more specific information about the prehistoric Brim River-including whether it is deep and broad enough that people could not walk across it-would support the argument because it would show if it is necessary for people to have boats to cross the river. Moreover, it is likely that the Pelean baskets can be traded to Lithos from Pelea by changing goods by goods many times, a pristine way for trade. Unless these evidence are found, we will not accept the author’s hasty conclusion.

Additionally, the author falsely claims that the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat. An assumption being made is that there are no methods for cross the river except boating. Considering the fact that baskets could be put on the river so that they can float to the Lithos, or baskets were just flushed by floods, the basket could be sent to Lithos absent from boat. Evidence that some fragments of baskets were found in the river or the material of the Pelean basket can stand the flush of food  suggesting that the possibilities I offered  exist indeed would weaken the argument because lacking boats cannot be used to doubt about the uniqueness of the invention of Palean baskets.

Finally, even if the deduction and inference made in the argument above is true, the author still fails to perform a feasibility analysis of that kind of baskets were not uniquely Palean. First, The author implies that there are no Pelean boats exist just because no boats have been found. Obviously, no Pelean boats having been found does not mean there are no boats existed for the archaeologists can keep finding clues until enough clues could prove no Pelean boat indeed. Also, evidence that axe or other tools are made by Pelean may doubt the argument in that Pelean can make their effort to make a boat or a big tree used like a boat by using these tools, showing their potential.

Exploring further the history of Palean baskets, the archaeologists will get more evidence and maybe surprising clues. However, the conclusion the author make is invalid and misleading, basing on my above analysis. They cannot expect the truth of the Palean baskets if they just stop finding more clues. Careful analysis of all the factors I have presented is the best first step to approaching the truth.

749896499

谢谢普渡哥、 而且发现很多人和我的模板都太像了。。 每段开头改成这样有没有更好：

Implied in the argument is the unwarranted assumption that the prehistoric Brim River was deep and broad just as it looks like now......

Additionally, the author falsely claims that the ancient Paleans could have crossed it only by boat.


Furthermore, the author still fails to perform a feasibility analysis of  that kind of baskets were not uniquely Palean, even if his/her deduction and inference made in the argument above is true.


会继续改模板、

普渡哥

感觉这个段落模板不是特别好，admittedly到finally显得很突兀。理由找的很好